asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of British Airport Authority staff.

I have not met representatives of BAA staff.

Does that not show contempt for the people who work in the BAA and have given a lifetime of service to build up the company to what it is now? As the Secretary of State is negotiating to sell the business over their heads, would it not be courteous for him to meet them and discuss their problems and anxieties about the future?

The hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded man, so he will not mind my reminding him that I have not been asked by the staff whether I wish to see them. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows from his knowledge of my Department, no such meeting has ever taken place in the history of the BAA. Beyond that, the letter of 28 July from the chairman of the BAA to the joint staff showed the extent to which there had been full consultation, but if the staff wish to see me on any matters which come within my purview and responsibility I shall, of course, be delighted to see them.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BAA will he remind him that it is Government policy to ensure competition, which means competition between British Airways and the independent airlines, and that allowing the BAA to indulge in unfair competition or restrictive practices is not Government policy and is frowned upon by Ministers?

The main question relates to potential meetings with BAA staff, but I am sure that the chairman of the BAA is fully aware of the Government's attitude and comitment to a policy of competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what level of capital investment by British Rail he intends to authorise in respect of the Channel Tunnel.

We have approved in principle BR investment of up to £390 million at January 1985 prices. Individual elements in the proposals will have to be submitted for detailed Government approval.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tunnel will create valuable opportunities for manufacturers, especially in the north, and exciting new prospects for exporters throughout the country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is about £1,000 million worth of business to be picked up during the construction phase and, on average, 10,000 jobs per year will be created through the term. With reference to the north, I am glad to say that a famous engineering company in Glasgow already has letters of intent in relation to two tunnel boring machines.

In relation to the level of capital investment that British Rail intends to authorise in respect of the Channel tunnel, will the Minister comment on the report in the latest issue of New Civil Engineer, the source of which is British Rail market analyst Ken Gibbs, and which includes comments from Kleinwort, Benson, Mowlem and others, that an entirely new, privately funded and operated rail route from Folkestone to London may be undertaken with a terminus at Victoria? Will he comment on that now, or later, and relate it to the issue of why Waterloo should be the sole flagship terminal for Channel tunnel traffic?

I know of no authoritative suggestion that there should be a new rail line from the coast to Victoria. British Rail has made it clear why Victoria is not suitable for the length of trains necessary for that service.

As a railway enthusiast, does my hon. Friend remember that the South Eastern Railway built a line from Tonbridge to Reading via Redhill a century ago for the purpose of a Channel tunnel and that that line was not included in the Beeching cuts? Is he aware that, sadly, that line is not now included in the major electrification scheme to enable British Rail and the Government to achieve the regional objectives for the tunnel, which are one of the main objects of the exercise? Will my hon. Friend reconsider the arrangements whereby British Rail has been asked to provide plans only for that which is absolutely essential, thus omitting those advantages?

I understand that British Rail is currently reviewing its initial decision that freight would be hauled from the tunnel by diesel and is now considering electrically powered haulage. That may well affect the line to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

I do not wish to draw my hon. Friend on a matter which is the subject of a public inquiry, but will he confirm that in principle the Department welcomes private investment in British Rail?

It is up to British Rail where it sees opportunities for private investment to help, but at the moment it is not a central part of British Rail policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what projects of rail electrification are currently awaiting his approval.

We have approved five major electrification projects submitted in the last three years. There are no further submissions outstanding. Work on four of the five electrification projects, including Bournemouth to Weymouth and Kings Cross to Edinburgh, is going ahead. The fifth, Tonbridge to Hastings, is already operational.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite apart from the benefits that these electrification schemes will bring to industry generally, they will also bring substantial benefits for the spreading of tourism away from London and especially to Dorset?

My hon. Friend is right. When I had the pleasure of opening one such scheme, the local authorities and the mayors of the areas involved were anxious to impress upon us the critical importance of tourism. Electrification will help tourism by improving not just the time but the quality and service of the trains.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anger in the west of Scotland at British Rail's proposal, following the electrification of the King's Cross to Edinburgh line, that fast trains from Glasgow should be re-routed through Edinburgh? Is he aware that there is great anxiety that this will cause considerable damage to the passenger routes in the west of Scotland and generally to the line between Glasgow and London? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is just rumour."]

As my colleagues have pointed out, it is just rumour, but I will look into the matter, because it was raised the other night. I have heard rather more compliments about electrification than I have heard complaints about the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

When granting approval for electrification, is it my right hon. Friend's intention also to approve the installation of automatic open level crossings? If so, will he bear in mind that such crossings have a poorer safety record than conventional crossings and that there is a great deal of resistance to them in both country and urban areas, as shown by petitions from my constituents in South Woodham Ferrers?

I am conscious of the petitions and of the point that my hon. Friend has raised. He may recall that this matter is under review. I have appointed Professor Stott to review the whole situation, because it clearly merits serious attention.

Is the Minister aware that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has caused vibrations as far down as Carlisle and far north west of England? I assure the Minister that there is general dissatisfaction about it all the way from Preston up to Glasgow. Will the Minister look at that issue?

I shall certainly look at that issue, but the main question relates specifically to the electrification programme, and I have confirmed that every submission put up by British Rail has been approved and that no submissions are outstanding.

Has the Secretary of State had sight of the Government's report to the EEC, highlighted a week or so ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in which some very disparaging remarks are made about the infrastructure in Wales? When will we have electrification of our railway lines? Why should Wales always be last in the queue?

I must confess that I have not personally read every one of the 17 volumes of the report to which the hon. Member refers, although I have, of course, read everything in relation to my transport responsibilities. The Government's record on electrification is outstanding. It is extraordinary to hear a Member whose party when in government approved only £71 million worth of electrification projects criticising the Government's approval so far of £474 million. That contrast illustrates the absurdity of some of the current debate.

Before my right hon. Friend agrees to any more rail electrification projects, will he have regard to the fact that British Rail management refuses to stock British mineral water and insists that every—

Order. That is miles wide of rail electrification.

In view of the changes at the north London line terminal, what are the plans for electrification there?

So far, every submission that we have received from British Rail relating to electrification proposals has been approved by the Government.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the great increase in traffic at the stations of Linlithgow, Polmont and Falkirk High and the success of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line in recent months? In those circumstances, is he sure that an added electrification route from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and then on to Glasgow will not damage the successful traffic between Edinburgh and Glasgow? This is very important to my constituents.

I always consider the hon. Gentleman's detailed comments carefully. I am not aware of the precise details about increases in traffic, but I shall consider the matter. I do not imagine, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said denies the high quality investment which most people regard as of great benefit to the east coast line.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider the statement that he has just made—that every case for electrification that has been received from British Rail has been approved? Will he consider the Manchester to Blackpool electrification case, which the Minister of State denies having rejected, presumably erroneously? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that line should be electrified on economic grounds and because it would be a satisfactory diversionary line in case of problems on the west coast main line?

To be precise, I should have said that there was one application a while back regarding Cambridge. It did not relate to the Blackpool to Manchester connection. There was no application from British Rail in that instance. The application, which was considered las year, was an application by the local authorities. When the application was examined, it was thought that sprinter diesels would provide most of the benefits at a much lower cost to taxpayers and ratepayers. I therefore reaffirm what I said about British Rail applications.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Rail concerning the organisation of freight services in Wales.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister appreciate that on 30 October I received a letter from Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, saying that if the demanding financial objectives set out by the Secretary of State are to be met the Severn tunnel junction will have to close? Will the Minister intervene in this matter, because if rail freight in Wales is to have any future this wonderful facility should be kept, irrespective of the safety and environmental factors involved in the new proposals?

It has been the policy of Labour and Conservative Administrations that freight should pay its way. There is no relationship whatever between the freight rationalisation in south Wales and my right hon. Friend's recently announced objectives for British Rail. What British Rail is doing in south Wales is designed to enable it to compete successfully with road haulage in a competitive world and to secure a viable business. I assume that the hon. Gentleman wants BR to have a viable freight business in south Wales, so I hope that he will support the action of BR management.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department adopts for the provision of motorway service areas.

The general policy is to provide service areas at intervals of about 30 miles.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Will he then explain to the House and to the many hundreds of thousands of those who use the M25 why that criterion was not adopted in the design of that orbital route?

The proposal is that there should should be four or five MSAs on the M25. One must recognise, as the Government do, that the tendering, planning, and inquiry processes are very lengthy. We expect South Mimms to be fully operational in the spring of next year, and hope that Thurrock will be available in 1988. The other two — Clackett Lane and Iver— still subject to inquiry processes.

Given the sheer volume of traffic using the M25, why have we had to wait for the completion of the motorway before the Government have come forward with proposals for these essential facilities?

That is a reasonable question. In many ways it would be better to begin the tendering process before the motorways are completed, but it is extremely difficult to get tenderers to come forward and get the process started before the motorways are completed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps different criteria should apply in the case of a road such as the M25 — a circular road—compared with a road that goes in a straight line such as the M1? Given the present level of traffic on the M25 in the rush hour, is there not some danger that if there were motorway service areas people who got off would never get back on again?

My right hon. Friend makes a good first point. I shall not comment on the second point, save to say that we have one MSA almost every 30 miles, but not quite.

Is the Minister aware that he has been besieged by questions from Tory Members who have not taken on board the Prime Minister's words last week'? She said that she wanted no criticism of the M25. What is going off? Only a few days have passed and senior Tory Members are stabbing the Prime Minister in the back. Will the hon. Gentleman assist us?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was making the perfectly sensible point, which I should have thought would be welcomed on all sides of the House, that the M25 has been extremely successful in a number of objectives—particularly, for example, in reducing the number of lorries going into the centre of London. But it is always capable of improvement. That is why we have now said that we shall consider the question of four lanes.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the northern link of the M40 is built from Oxford to Birmingham, the provision of motorway service areas will be catered for during the building programme and not some years after it has been opened?

I have already said that that is a good objective, but when the tendering process is involved it is difficult to get the tenderers interested until they are clear as to the timing of the opening of the motorway concerned.

To help the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), if not my own ministerial prospects, may I say how much my constituents appreciate the completion of the M25? As the whole of the M25 goes through the established green belt of the metropolis, however, may I have my hon. Friend's assurance that not more than four service stations will he built along this length of motorway and that wherever possible and practicable already developed land or derelict land will be used?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. I cannot give him any assurance as to the number of motorway service stations, although I have already indicated that only four or five are planned at the moment along the entirety of the route. Therefore, the indications are that the stretch to which my hon. Friend referred will not have so many such stations as he fears.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative safety performance of the United Kingdom's airports compared with that of other European countries.

The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory operational responsibility for safety at airports in the United Kingdom. I do not have comparative data about airports elsewhere in Europe.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that a couple of civilian aircraft have been playing leapfrog in the skies over one of our major airports, has he had talks or meetings with the chairman of the CAA to see what can be done to reassure the public about the safety of our airports and airlines?

Yes, I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, who naturally shares my concern about this matter. He has asked me to inform the House that he would welcome meetings with interested Members of Parliament to discuss the details of air traffic control procedures. One risk-bearing air miss is one too many, but it is worth remembering that the air miss to which my hon. Friend referred is the first of its kind over London in the past 10 years, during which period there have been 2½ million movements at Heathrow alone, let alone Gatwick, Luton and Stansted.

When can we expect a further ministerial statement about the lessons that have been learnt from all the inquiries into the traffic accident to the Boeing 737 at Manchester international airport on 22 August 1985?

I am unable to make a definitive statement to the House. All the very detailed investigations that are currently being undertaken have yet to be finalised.

My hon. Friend will know that one of the most important safety aspects at airports is security and the prevention of terrorist threats. Will he comment on how good British airports are in this respect as compared with European airports?

Although it is not strictly a safety matter, security is equally of great importance, and the standard of security at British airports is the highest in the world. Many figures could be used to support that statement For instance, a bomb has never been placed on an aircraft that has left a British airport, nor has there even been a hijack.

In so far as it has been alleged that an aircraft controller carrying out his duties was actually interrupted during the course of his work and that that may have been a contributory factor to the most recent incident, surely an emergency change in procedure is required. Does the Minister agree that it is not just a matter of the Civil Aviation Authority talking about coming to Parliament and discussing the matter with Members of Parliament, but that rapid action needs to be taken in case there is a similar incident in the future?

The CAA is looking urgently at the proposition that there was some distraction, although it is not clear that distraction was the cause of the incident.

Apart from examining the air miss over Stanmore to which my hon. Friend referred, which is very important, is he aware that we need to examine the rest periods and the hours of work of controllers, a point that has also been raised again? Will he discuss that question with the CAA?

That, equally, will be looked into, but the current rest period at a busy control centre such as Heathrow is half an hour every two hours, so considerable rest periods are already built into the system.

Does the Minister agree that in principle it would be best to segregate private flights from scheduled flights, bearing in mind, for instance, the number of private aeroplanes using Birmingham airport, while Coventry airport just up the road is not used to anything like its full capacity?

That proposition is well worth considering. In the London system, which is far and away the busiest system, there is already clear segregation. However, I shall look carefully into this question. In the United States the lack of segregation has been a major cause of accidents in the past. Perhaps, therefore, we should consider segregation for all airports.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is no reason, on safety grounds, why airlines should not be permitted to make transatlantic flights from Glasgow airport?

I suspect that there are no safety grounds, although I should need to take the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority on that, but there are traffic distribution policy grounds for transatlantic flights being made at the moment only from Prestwick.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and obvious concern on telephoning me when I raised with him the case of a constituent who was involved in the incident on the Edinburgh shuttle. Is there any way in which knowledge of these dreadful things—my consituent was terrified—can be made available more quickly?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time.

I believe that a wide distribution of knowledge is a good thing. That is one reason why I very much welcome, as a start, what the chaiman of the CAA has said. He would welcome giving hon. Members as full a briefing on these matters as they are interested in receiving. After that, it will, to some extent, be a matter for their judgment how much knowledge is spread. As a matter of Government policy, I believe that we should make available as much information as we reasonably can, without starting scare campaigns.

I commend the air traffic controllers on their excellent work over the years, but is it not the case that the greater the traffic, the greater the risk and that the CAA report says that, in addition to one or two specific incidents, there has been anxiety about the deterioration in air traffic control standards? Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman study the report extremely carefully and present a report to the House to assure everyone that there is no shortage of staff or training and that money is available to increase the number of staff if that should be needed?

It would be worth analysing that matter in greater detail, because we must not have views based on partial leaks. One misunderstanding has arisen out of a partial leak that referred to only a limited amount of data.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met trade union representatives of British Rail's staff.

My right hon. Friend has not yet been approached by representatives of the rail unions for a meeting, although I have met them on a number of occasions.

When the Minister next gets the opportunity to meet the British Rail trade unions, will he explain to them why the Government have found it necessary to make a further 25 per cent. cut in their grant to British Rail? Will he also explain how many more people will lose their jobs as a consequence, bearing in mind that tens of thousands of loyal, devoted and skilled railwaymen have already lost their jobs? It is all right sitting on the Government Benches making these decisions, but people are losing their jobs, and travellers, such as myself, who use British Rail week in and week out, are finding that the level of service is dropping, not because of the people who work on the lines, but because of the decisions of British Rail and because Ministers are cutting the system and starving it of cash.

The hon. Gentleman asked about my next meeting with the unions. The former Secretary of State met the unions in December 1983. The NUR was to have met us in July 1985, but cancelled the meeting, saying that it would be in touch to arrange another date. It has not yet done so.

Will my hon. Friend accept that he should not wait for the trade unions to approach him, but that he should be asking to meet the trade unions and asking why there are such high rates of absenteeism, particularly among transport catering staff? Passengers have to go for hours on end without food or drink on British Rail trains.

That is a management matter for British Rail and not one in which Ministers should get involved with staff unions. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of vacancies. As unemployment among railwaymen has been mentioned, I should say that there are still unfilled vacancies and British Rail would be glad to have people come forward to fill them.

Before the Minister rushes to criticise absenteeism or other matters, will he take the trouble to look at the scandalously low pay of many people who work on British Rail? He will find that even people who often work unsocial hours have take-home pay of only £70 or £80 a week. Even if the Minister and his colleagues wish to criticise absenteeism or the inability to fill vacancies, will he realise that the 25 per cent. cut will be made at the expense, to some extent, of railwaymen and their standard of living?

British Rail has managed with a 25 per cent. reduction in its PSO for the past three years and this has not resulted in any reduction in railwaymen's wages. Moreover, the level of their wages in real terms is slightly better than it was when the Labour Government were in office.

When the Minister meets the unions, will he ask them to have a word with British Rail management to ascertain why English mineral waters are refused on British Rail, with the consequence that the French have a monopoly on all British Rail rolling stock? Why do the French have such a monopoly, and why are English mineral waters refused on the same wagons?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting but somewhat detailed point about the management of the catering side of British Rail, which I shall draw to the chairman's attention.

Is it not the contention of the unions and of others that any reduction in the real value of rail subsidies must be met either by reducing the quality of services or increasing fares over the general rise in inflation? Is the Minister suggesting that the reduction can be wholly met from increased efficiency?

Yes, Sir.

When the Minister next meets the appropriate trade unions, will he discuss with them the impact on fares and services of the Government's latest reduction in financial support for British Rail? Will he accept from me that on Friday afternoon, to take one example, my train to Birmingham was 40 minutes late for a 95-minute journey? Will he also accept that it is no consolation to regular rail travellers to gaze across fields at the permanent traffic jams on the M1?

I travelled on the first electric train from Huntingdon this morning and it was dead on time on arrival. Moreover, Network SouthEast has set itself a target of 90 per cent. of trains arriving within five minutes of scheduled time and is now beating that target. As for the improvements in efficiency which are required, 8 per cent. in three years is not beyond the wit of most major organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the public expressing concern about any delays in the Channel tunnel construction project.

The Channel tunnel project is still on target for construction to start next summer as planned, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval, and very few members of the public have expressed concern about possible delays.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer? In view of the scurrilous disinformation and hostile propaganda against this excellent project last week, will he go further and confirm that there is, as he said, no delay, that the finance is fully secured and that this is an attractive project for investments? Will he confirm also that there is no question of the French having unfair domination, that we are indulging in 50–50 co-operation with our great continental neighbour 20 miles away on a fully friendly basis and that this excellent project will produce thousands of jobs?

I do not think that I can pick up all the points in my hon. Friends supplementary question, but essentially, the success of Eurotunnel in raising funds in the City was a remarkable achievement when we consider that the Bill has not yet completed its passage through Parliament, that the treaty has not been ratified, that the concession agreement is not yet in effect and that competitors have been running a fierce campaign to dissuade investment. That campaign suggests that those behind it share the Government's hopes for this exciting project.

Will the Minister confirm that the money for the Channel tunnel was secured only at the very last minute by the intervention of the Governor of the Bank of England who started the arm-twisting process by saying to financial institutions, "Will you put up some money, albeit we might not need it for a long time?" Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance, once again, that the Government will not use any taxpayer's money to finance this project at any time?

Questions for the Bank of England are a matter for its Governor. I confirm that the Government have no intent, desire, or see any necessity, to provide governmental money for the Channel tunnel project. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his own party, which understands the excitement of the potential developments for British Rail to which hon. Members referred a few moments ago. The project has potential also for the north and all other parts of our great kingdom that might benefit from it.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has received no representations from anyone in Southend expressing concern about delays in this project? Is he willing to issue a clear warning to average British investors that if they put their money into the project later this year, they will lose it all if the project is not completed because of funds running out?

I would not seek to intervene in any way in the normal market process or seek to give advice to investors as to what they should or should not do with their money. I rely of course— as you would expect. Mr. Speaker—upon my hon. Friend for advice about the views of people in the Southend area.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the conclusions of the fourth report from the Defence Committee on "Westland plc: the Government's Decision-making," in so far as they relate to his responsibilities.

I have received three letters from hon. Members in which they asked questions as to the role I played in the inquiry into the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter.

Is it, or is it not, true, as reported by Mr. John Lewis in the Sunday Telegraph on 27 July, that the Attorney-General did any such thing as threaten Sir Robert Armstrong that he would bring in either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police if there was not an agreement from the Cabinet to have an inquiry into the circumstances in which the Solicitor-General's letter was leaked?

I have nothing to add to what has already been said in answer to questions and in statements.

Is it not amazing that the Attorney-General has to threaten the Cabinet Secretary that the police will be called in to No. 10 unless an inquiry is held into public matters? Does the Attorney-General realise that the very fact that he refuses directly to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which I am putting to him again, must confirm that the newspaper reports are accurate?

My answer in no way confirms the report.

I cannot help but say that I am not sure that the Attorney-General is being as candid with the House as he might be. Am I right in assuming that the reason why no civil servant is to be prosecuted for leaking the Solicitor-General's letter is that the Attorney-General believes that ultimate blame lies elsewhere? Is he aware that his failure to prosecute civil servants effectively pins the blame on the only possible remaining culprit—the Prime Minister?

If I may say so, that is the non sequitor of the day. The only civil servant whom I was concerned with was the information officer. For the reasons that I have explained to the House, it is quite clear that no jury would ever convict her.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Attorney-General's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General if he will now state what sum was paid in legal aid to Mr. Derry Mainwaring Knight during the so-called Satan trial; and if he will make a statement.

Nothing was paid to Mr. Knight. Payments made under the legal aid scheme in respect of fees, as assessed by officers of the Crown court, are paid direct to individual fee earners. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish these.

As Mr. Mainwaring Knight was convicted of conning hundreds of thousands of pounds out of people, was he required to repay the legal aid paid on his behalf for his defence? If not, should he not have been, in view of the great demand upon legal aid funds?

The sentence imposed upon Mr. Knight, in addition to seven years' imprisonment, included a fine of £50,000 with two years' imprisonment consecutive in default of payment.

What real efforts are made to investigate the means of people such as Mr. Knight to ascertain what money they really have and so recover legal aid fees?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is an investigation into means. The decision whether to grant criminal legal aid has to be made promptly. It is not always possible, of course, to carry out as full an investigation as might be desirable in ideal circumstances. The matter is examined as thoroughly as possible.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement on his decision not to prosecute The Sun newspaper regarding a cartoon it published.

My decision was taken on the basis of all the relevant circumstances, which included as one — I stress one — of the factors, a mistake in my Department which arose from a misunderstanding between myself and an official and led to the complainants being wrongly informed that I had decided to prosecute. The true position was that I simply wished police inquiries to be made. The House will realise, of course, that I naturally regret this.

What new information or representations had the Attorney-General received between 30 July and 21 August? What was their nature, and what was in them that made the Attorney-General change his mind?

Various representations were made from the Arab Society, but I do not know whether they were within those dates. Various people concerned with the matter, including The Sun, were wrongly told that there would be a prosecution. When they were interviewed by the police, on advice, they took a course different from the one they would have taken if they had known the true facts.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the sensitivies of Arab terrorists or pickets outside Wapping, the pig is a much maligned creature?

I have always been rather fond of pigs.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the recent Treasury review of legal aid.

The review team comprised officials from the efficiency unit, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. The period of consultation on the recommendations ended on 30 September. The Government are now analysing the responses and an announcement of our decisions will be made as soon as possible. At present this seems likely to be about the turn of the year.

This is a good starting point for a debate on legal aid. Will it be possible for Parliament to debate the report in Government time? Inasmuch as the report highlights the large sums of money now being spent through the legal aid scheme, could the Solicitor-General tell us whether there ought to be a Government Minister directly accountable to the House of Commons for that expenditure?

The allocation of Government time is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about direct ministerial accountability. I am not sure that direct accountability would necessarily reduce expenditure from the public purse, but I note the point and will refer it to those concerned.

Without anticipating what the report might say, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are circumstances in which constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members have problems, particularly the low-paid, those on small incomes and, sometimes, those on retirement pensions, when they wish to appeal against rating assessments, and in order to put forward sensible appeals require professional advice? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that legal aid in certain deserving cases might be worth while?

It is easy to think of types of dispute in which our constituents would like legal aid but do not have it at the moment. The present Lord Chancellor has enlarged the area of legal aid. I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that further enlargements are an immediate prospect.

asked the Attorney-General if has yet made a decision regarding possible proceedings for contempt of court in relation to the publication by some of the media of premature reports concerning an out-of-court settlement in the British Broadcasting Corporation libel case; and if he will make a statement.

Since the conclusion of the proceedings, I have received a letter from the trial judge setting out the aspects of the media coverage which caused him concern. Officials have procured copies of the relevant material, which I have considered with the benefit of advice from Treasury counsel. It is clear that certain factual inquiries need to be made before a final decision is taken as to the institution of proceedings for contempt. Those inquiries are now in hand.

Does the Attorney-General agree that there are many disturbing features about this case and that there is a widespread sense of disquiet, both about the media coverage and about many other aspects of it? Will the Attorney-General examine the circumstances of this case rather more widely? If he does not do so, many people will feel that justice was certainly not done.

I am concerned principally with the media coverage, because that is under my responsibility. 1 must tell the hon. Member that before I received the letter from the judge I had already asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to start an inquiry.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend heard of the new phrase, to "Panorama" somebody? Is it not the case that there was no intimidation of witnesses, but that the BBC had an absolutely hopeless case—that is what the matter is about—and it has been trying to "Panorama" its own settlement?

If there really is any evidence of intimidation of witnesses, I just wish that it could be made available. [Interruption.] As I said in an answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who keeps interrupting me, the only document that he has provided to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is Mr. Pedley's wretched letter.

Does the Attorney-General not recognise that Mr. Christopher Hayward, the Dorset county councillor, was nobbled by an official at Conservative Central Office? Does he not understand that there is a tape in existence which will prove that, that it will surface inevitably, and that when it does we shall look to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ensure that there are prosecutions?

What the hon. Gentleman is doing yet again is using the privilege of the House to make allegations in respect of which he has no evidence of any kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the figures for United Kingdom expenditure on overseas aid are compiled on the same basis and using the same criteria as the figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the figures for Britain's overseas aid reported to the OECD conform to OECD definitions. The relationship between these figures and those for public expenditure on aid is explained in the introduction to the Overseas Development Administration's publication "British Aid Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library.

Does the Minister recall that in the open letter that was addressed to him by his predecessor, the former Minister said that meetings between himself and the Prime Minister on those matters were few and far between? Will he therefore draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the need not to muddy the waters with regard to the figures by private flows, promissory notes, and so on? Will he distinguish his term of office by aiming unreservedly for the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent?

On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I could not add reasonably to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to him in correspondence that was published on 30 June. I hope that 1 can help to deliver a quality and effective aid programme over the next few years.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that, whatever may be the finer points of the statistical arguments about assistance to developing countries, the important thing is to increase the beneficial flows, and in that respect the private flows are every bit as valuable, when carefully directed, as public flows?

I totally accept what my hon. Friend has said. The position of the Labour party on that issue is somewhat schizophrenic.

Does the Minister agree that on whatever basis those figures are compiled they show a disturbing fall year on year from 1979? I refer to that valedictory letter in the Daily Telegraph from his predecessor. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor said that the only time that the Prime Minister bothered to speak to him about aid was when she dismissed him? Does the hon. Gentleman expect to meet the Prime Minister more frequently?

It would make every day if I saw the Prime Minister regularly. Since 1982–83 our aid programme has been increasing in real terms, and I hope that we can secure the real terms increase in the aid budget.

The Minister will be aware that, according to the OECD, the Development Assistance Committee aid review committee on 18 September was given

"a detailed account of the project appraisal criteria and procedures followed by the United Kingdom."

I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure he will also have recognised that the OECD Development Assistance Committee in September welcomed the high concessionality of our aid programme. It also welcomed the relatively large concentration of aid from this country to the poorest countries, which was better than the average elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the new managing director of Gibrepair Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

I have not met the new managing director of Gibrepair Ltd.

Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the conditions for financial assistance by the Government to Gibrepair Ltd. to assist with the privatisation of the former royal naval dockyard was that a system of proper industrial relations practices, a sort of code of conduct, should be agreed between management and worker? Those of us who visited the dockyard during the summer were disappointed to find that there had been little progress on that front and that that was not the fault of the shop floor. Will my hon. Friend ensure that no further payments are made to Gibrepair Ltd., until the management and unions agree on a proper system of working practices, bearing in mind the extremely competitive market in which Gibrepair is operating?

I am sure that that is a matter which should and does concern the Government of Gibraltar as the owners of Gibrepair. My hon. Friend will know that in 1983 we agreed to provide up to £28 million towards the establishment and initial working capital of Gibrepair Ltd., and £26·6 million of that has been spent. We agreed in 1986 to allocate a further £2·4 million as a final contribution to the capital costs of the project. Final in those circumstances means final.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of aid is proposed to India for the next 12 months.

In the current financial year we plan to spend about £108 million on bilateral aid to India and approximately £6 million from the aid and trade provision. We have also told the Government of India that India could expect soft loans or mixed credit for British exports to a value of up to about £300 million over the next five years provided the two Governments identify and agree the desired projects. This would be additional to our normal programme of grant-aid.

I welcome the increase in aid to India. However, does the Minister agree that the level of poverty and deprivation in that country are staggering and that we should do everything in our power to help? Can the House have the Minister's assurance that the present unhappy differences on matters of policy between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government will not be allowed to interfere in any way with the aid programme?

We would like to see ever warmer relations with the Indian Government. India is the largest recipient of our aid on a bilateral basis, because the largest number of people in absolute poverty live there.

Now that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi has denounced Her Majesty's Government as racist for requiring visas, as India does, how can the Indian Government bear to accept aid from us?

That is a question that might be directed to Mr. Gandhi. We have made our views on visas well known to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department takes as part of its aid programme to discourage deforestation.

The Government fully support conservation of forest resources and their use on a sustainable and renewable basis. They are giving priority to forestry projects within the aid programme, and, with other donors, support the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forestry action plan. I am delighted to add that the Korup rain forest in Cameroon has just been designated a national park. Our project with non-governmental organisations to help conserve this forest will go ahead with the Cameroon authorities.

I welcome that answer. However, are all aid-supported projects, including those under the aid and trade provision, evaluated if they are in afforested areas in order to assess whether they will do damage to existing forests? If not, will the Minister ensure that such steps are taken?

I am endeavouring to ensure that we give environmental aspects of development aid ever greater priority. I take note of the extremely important point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the pleasure which it gives me, as someone who has trekked in that forest in the Cameroons, to know that the aid is going to an area which was once ruled by this country, the Anglophone part of the Cameroons? What other African countries are making similar proposals to this Government?

We have made progress in other countries with forestry projects, for example in Ghana. We are now spending £5·8 million on forestry projects, which is about an 80 per cent. increase over the past five years, so I hope that many other countries will benefit from that in the future.

The Minister will be aware that this is a major problem, especially in tropical areas. I wonder whether he can tell the House what kind of expenditure goes on afforestation within his tropical scientific unit and how many qualified foresters are working under the technical co-operation programme? The Minister will know as well as I that there are many first-class university departments and research institutes in forestry in this country and that we have a major contribution to make.

As I said in reply to the last question, we are spending about £5·8 million on forestry projects and about £500,000 on research. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the number of foresters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the level and use of United Kingdom budgetary aid to the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

A total of £1,460,000 has been approved for the current year. Budgetary aid is provided to cover an overall deficit on the recurrent account. Its purpose is to enable the Government to maintain a minimum reasonable level of public services until means can be found of generating additional sources of revenue.

Does the Minister remember the substantial capital investment in a controversial airport on the Turks and Caicos Islands associated with an equally controversial Club Mediterranée project, on the advice of the Foreign Office, to eliminate that very deficit? When will the deficit be eliminated? Is the Department responsible, not for development, but for the general grants in aid?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the impact of tourism, which I think is the main point behind his question. In our judgment, Club Med has had a beneficial effect on the Government's income through increased tourism. The number of visitors has increased substantially. That should help to deal with the budgetary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that Transport questions 4, 6, 17, 18, 26, 28, 33, 43, 44 and 46 deal with the effects of deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. Significantly, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who asked question 43, every other hon. Member who tabled questions on the same subject was absent. They include five members of the Labour Opposition, one Liberal and one member of the SDP. That means that others interested in the topic were denied the opportunity of asking supplementary questions.

Order. No, I will not. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was rising earlier, otherwise he might have had his chance. There were a number of absentees today. If hon. Members cannot be present for questions they need only let my Office know and their questions will not be called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you became Speaker of this House you undertook to protect Back Benchers' rights. I believe that you have done so to a greater extent than any other Speaker since I have been here. In the context of the protection of Back Benchers, is there not a right to get answers from Ministers, not necessarily on judgment or policy, but on fact and personal behaviour? For example, I asked the Attorney-General whether he did or did not threaten Sir Robert Armstrong with the DPP and the constabulary? Are we not entitled to a straight answer—yes or no—either "I did threaten him" or "I did not threaten him", rather than a complete evasion? On matters of personal behaviour by Ministers, however senior, are we not entitled to a yes-no answer to a yes-no factual question?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his point of order. All that I can do is to give Back Benchers an opportunity to ask questions. I am not responsible for the answers.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not get a response from the Attorney-General, will you look into whether it is possible for the Attorney-General to answer questions more frequently? The matter could go before the appropriate Committee. When the Attorney-General came into the Chamber today, he looked ill, and I thought that he did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow because he did not quite feel up to it, but when the Attorney-General answered other questions, he did so very fully. He spent two or three minutes answering questions on other issues—

Order. I have already dealt with that matter. I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. The hon. Gentleman is sitting opposite the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, so perhaps he should put his question to him.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know you accept that the interests of Back Benchers should be protected, but we are in some difficulty, as the Government have assured us that we cannot ask people such as the Cabinet Secretary what happened because, as officials, they are not supposed to answer such questions, and, ultimately, responsibility to inform the House lies with Ministers. But when hon. Members table questions—I am not even talking about unexpected supplementary questions — the legitimate response can only be yes or no. When we ask a serious question, such as whether the law was threatened against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, we cannot obtain an answer. At some stage we shall have to ask you to give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how, in the light of what has been said about Westland, the rights of Back Benchers can be protected against ministerial abuses arid the refusal of Ministers to answer our questions.

Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and Back Benchers would not expect me to take responsibility for deciding whether answers to questions are correct. I have no idea whether they are, and that has never been part of the Chair's function.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will agree that Back Benchers should be able to question Ministers. Earlier today I went to the Table Office to ask when I could table a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I was notified. I found out that the right hon. Gentleman answers questions very infrequently, and that when he does so it is for five minutes only. The right hon. Gentleman has been making the most outlandish attacks on the BBC. Your would argue, Mr. Speaker, as I would, that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wishes to do that, so be it, but as the right hon. Gentleman has been taking a much higher profile than any of his predecessors, will there be some opportunity, when the new Session begins, to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions more frequently? When he comes to the Dispatch Box, can it be for more than five minutes at a time? The present situation is entirely unsatisfactory.

I should refine the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is not a matter for the Procedure Committee, but, normally for the usual channels to decide on the frequency of questions and the length of time in which they are answered.